You cannot talk about what experience is.
You can only talk about how you talk about what experience is.
You cannot talk about how you talk about how you talk about what experience is, as in the infinitely regressive succession of higher-ordered logics(if I were to say; how do you talk about experience(first order: predication ranges over one relation- how do you talk about how to talk about experience(second order: predication ranges over a set of relations- how do you talk about how to talk about how you talk about experience(third order: predication ranges over a set of sets of relations)))); you must only attempt to talk about /what/ it is to talk about how you talk about what experience is, so to effectively dissolve that infinite regression(the interrogative pronoun(i.e. representation of a name) 'what' acts as a representation of that infinite series of 'how-relations')
Ludwig Wittgenstein once stated that philosophy is not a theory, but rather, an activity. If you understand this quote(as in, you're not supposed to postulate the existence of metaphysical entities so much as you're supposed to analyze the ones already before you), then you will see that this is the sort of philosophy that is being done herein.
Now, I realize that this probably isn't the most apt forum for this post given all of the pseudo intellectuals here (who are so quick to dismiss anything that they do not immediately understand..), but I also know there are a select handful on here that have actually had a reasonable education in philosophy (hence they would be able to understand it) and may be willing to explore what I have posited. Through that alone I see it as worthy to attempt. But even after writing such a caveat as this one, there will, nevertheless, still be those idiots who become offended by something they are unfamiliar with and try to tell me about the vacuousness of my grandiloquence(to that guy: you are incredibly stupid, but you will never become aware of this fact, and that is precisely your life's punishment).. To you all, I say so be it, you provide us with that taste of delicate irony that always so well complements the entrée of philosophic inquiry. And to the one's who care to indulge in content rather than in opposition, I thank you.
Cheers~
Update:@ Dan
You didn't understand anything I wrote.
Answers & Comments
Verified answer
I see you've done a fair job of becoming tangled up in your mental machinations, lol. Truth is simple, and we should be too.
What is Enlightenment? --
We are all beings of Light, of pure consciousness as our very essence; you can also call it our highest frequency. But this pure essence of self has been layered over by endless mental accumulations and emotional misunderstandings. You do not attain enlightenment by intellectualizing, which is limited anyways, but by silencing the mind and opening up the inner being, your mind and heart, to the inflow of the higher intelligence, love, and power, call it the Universal Mind if you wish, it doesn't change the fact.
I must admit that your lack of respect and uncivil tone in this discussion represents all that I would seek to avoid in an exchange of ideas. You know as well as I do that intellectual weaving of words is very limited and can only go so far. What good is Intellect in describing Eternity or Infinity?
--------
Adding my two cents' worth. ;- )
Well, Language, control over a language and the understanding of topics becomes very important when it comes to talking about experience.
English becomes very restricting in such cases. Not having words for many meta-physical elements or astral/subtle elements. Also your understanding of the elemental science is important.
Most experiences have been described before many times, but when any individual does experience there description thus is totally portray of their own understanding.
Enlightenment - is much much higher topic. No one here I think would be worthy enough to describe it. Also there are lots of experiences before enlightenment - I would rather tell you to focus on the next thing than getting ahead of yourself( please don't mind)
Because such things only give you this sense of loathing,pride etc which is seen in the 2nd part of your question.
You are wrong.what you have perposed is a so called paradox.
You have a arrow that gose from point a to point b.befor it can go to point b it must pass a midd point(c)befor that it must go through another half(1/4 the original ab line)And befor that another half(d).This is infinite.so how dose the arrow go to point b if it has to pass through a infinite amount of progressively halfed points?the answer is that it dose not.the infinite half points are just measure just as are your progressive talk about talking abouts.it dose not account for actions.if you wish to apply so called logic then let's do math.how about a simple word problem?
Dan spoke about philosophy once today.
How manny times did he talk about philosophy today?
First we look at the data(Dan spoke about philosophy once today.)
Bassed on the data I have spoken about philosophy today.thus concluding I can and have.
Thus saying enlightenment is the acceptance and learning of reason and logic.also that metaphysics is study of the unpersiveabile except the human mind(pure science)
Thus concluding that you are wrong.